From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Rhone Mediterranee Compagnia Francese v. Lauro
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
712 F.2d 50 (1983)
Rhone Mediterranee Compagnia Francese di Assicurazioni E Riassicurazioni (Rhone) (plaintiff) insured and reimbursed Costa Armatori S.P.A. (Costa) for property loss resulting from fire damage to a boat leased by Costa. Rhone sued the owner of the boat, Achille Lauro, and its master, Antonio Scotto di Carlo (collectively, Lauro) (defendants) for breach of the Lauro-Costa lease agreement, unseaworthiness, and boat-crew negligence. The lease agreement contained an arbitration clause requiring arbitration in Italy, with each party being allowed to designate one arbitrator. The agreement also provided that, if the two chosen arbitrators could not agree on an award, those arbitrators could appoint a third person to make the final decision. Article II of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (convention), which is incorporated into the Federal Arbitration Act, required that the “Contracting State” refer parties to arbitration unless the arbitration agreement was null and void. Article V of the convention stated that either the law chosen by the parties or the law of the arbitration forum determined whether an award could be enforced. Lauro moved to stay the lawsuit in favor of arbitration, and Rhone opposed. Rhone argued that the choice-of-law rule in Article V applied to Article II and therefore the law of the forum, Italy, governed the agreement. Rhone argued that, under Italian law, arbitration clauses requiring an even number of arbitrators were null and void even when a tiebreaker could be appointed. Lauro countered that Article II permitted the forum responsible for deciding whether the case should be arbitrated to apply its own law when determining the validity of the agreement. The United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands granted Lauro’s motion to stay, and Costa appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Gibbons, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.